John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois. His focus is exactly where we ought to be having our focus, which is how to take the profit out of this modern-day slavery and redirect it to help the victims, and that is what this bill does. It ends some of the impunity that some of these purveyors of human flesh--the rewards they are reaping--and plows it back in to help the victims. I know the SAVE Act has been a particular focus for the Senator from Illinois. Earlier I talked to Senator Feinstein, the Senator from California, about this issue. She is very concerned about how the Internet is becoming integrated as part of the business model of some of these perpetrators of this crime. I am also told--and the Senator from Illinois may be aware of this-- that veterans will participate.

Mr. CORNYN. I hold the Senate seat that was first held by Senator Sam Houston who actually resigned his seat as Governor of Texas rather than participate in secession. He was a Union man and believed in the Union. I know the Senator from Illinois has worked very hard on a bipartisan basis with Mr. Blumenthal, the Senator from Connecticut, and others on this legislation, and that is why I find this situation so baffling. What has been a uniquely bipartisan effort has now turned into a partisan filibuster and, frankly, I am perplexed by that. Maybe some of our friends on the other side of the aisle will come out and explain why they are filibustering the bill they voted for in the Judiciary Committee. We had a unanimous vote in the Judiciary Committee. We had 10 Democratic cosponsors. Yet the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, now says they will not allow a vote on any amendments and they are going to kill this bill because they don't want to vote for a bill that has a provision they have voted for time and time again, and indeed has been the law of the land for 39 years. I thank the Senator from Illinois. We are joined by the Senator from South Dakota who is head of our Republican conference and has been very concerned about the dysfunction in this place. We actually saw this legislation as an opportunity to start demonstrating that we can do the people's business once again after coming off of a very tough election--tougher for our Democratic friends than it was for our side of the aisle. It was an election where voter after voter said they were sick and tired of the dysfunction here. We want to show we can be responsive to the needs of the most vulnerable people in our country. I yield to the Senator from South Dakota for any comments he cares to make.

Mr. CORNYN. Months.

Mr. CORNYN. I say to my friend, it was marked up or passed out of the Judiciary Committee roughly a month later.

Mr. CORNYN. On January 13, I say to my friend.

Mr. CORNYN. I will say to my friend that he is correct. That includes the strikeout provisions of the substitute, so actually the text is roughly half of that. The provisions our friends across the aisle suddenly woke up and discovered--apparently a couple of days ago--were written in plain sight and incorporate by reference a bill they voted for, which was the last appropriations bill we voted for in the lameduck session.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will respond to my friend from South Dakota to say he is absolutely correct, which is one reason I am so perplexed we find ourselves where we are today. We have 10 cosponsors from the Democratic side for this underlying bill which was filed on January 13. It was marked up in the Judiciary Committee a month later and got a unanimous vote. I will add to that, in response to my friend's question, we also saw something we have not seen here in a long time on the Senate floor, and that is an agreement by all 100 Senators that we would proceed to consider this bill and begin the amendment and debate process without having to jump through all of the procedural hoops we traditionally have to do on cloture motions and the like. What happened a couple of days ago when apparently some of our friends woke up and found out about this issue--what has been called a phantom problem--is very disturbing.

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator from Illinois, and I take no offense for talking about the fact that the South lost the Civil War.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am just going to say that I know the distinguished Senators from Vermont and Maine have been on the floor talking about an amendment they hope to offer to this anti-trafficking bill. But the sad fact is that no one is going to get to offer any amendments to this bill unless the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, decides that we are going to have an open amendment process because right now there are objections to anyone setting any of the amendments for votes, much less asking to set aside the pending amendment and making your amendment the pending amendment so it could be considered and scheduled for a vote. I wish to make sure our colleagues understand the rationale because I have had conversations with a number of members of the Judiciary Committee, which voted unanimously to support this bill. That doesn't happen very often, that we have that kind of unanimous support. Ten of our Democratic colleagues are cosponsors on the original bill. So it might sound strange that after 10 Democrats have cosponsored the bill, after all of the Republicans and all of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have voted to support this bill--and the minority leader, Senator Reid, has agreed to dispense with the normal procedural process to get the bill on the floor--that we would now have this unusual situation where this bill is being hijacked and being used to debate something that it really doesn't have very much to do about, and that is the subject of abortion. Some of our colleagues raised this issue yesterday for the first time, and they said they were surprised to find some language in the bill that limited the use of the funds in this bill consistent with the Hyde amendment. The Hyde amendment is a prohibition against using taxpayer funds for abortion, and it has been the law of the land for 39 years--39 years. All our bill does is preserve the status quo when it comes to the Hyde amendment. Then, all of a sudden, some of our colleagues woke up I guess yesterday morning and discovered this and said that they were outraged and that it was totally unacceptable. Well, when we offered them an opportunity to offer an amendment to change that, they said: No, we don't want an amendment. We don't want to change it by a vote of the Senate. We just want to block the bill. We want to kill the bill. Unless something changes between now and the time we vote on cloture on the bill, that is what is going to happen because they don't want to amend the bill; they don't want to allow others the opportunity--such as the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Vermont--to amend the bill; they just want to kill the bill. It really is baffling to me, on a topic we all ought to agree is an important one, where some of the most vulnerable individuals in our society--children who have been sex-trafficked--would be the beneficiaries of the bill, that we are for some reason debating a provision in the bill that was in the bill when 10 Democrats agreed to cosponsor it, when all members of the Judiciary Committee, including those same Democrats, agreed to vote for the bill, and when the Democratic leader agreed to bring it to the floor unanimously by a vote of the Senate. All of a sudden we want to try to revisit a provision that has been the law of the land for 39 years. I hope something happens between now and the end of the week that causes some of our friends to reconsider this idea that they are going to filibuster this bill which many of them cosponsored and for which many of them voted. It would be a real shame and a tragedy if something that was designed to help these vulnerable kids was killed in the Senate because this became a political football. That would be a shame. I know the distinguished Senator from Utah is on the floor and ready to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thought I might take just a few minutes during this lull in our schedule. If other Senators come down to talk, I will yield to them, but I would like to talk a little about what is in this piece of legislation--the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. While I am on the Judiciary Committee and the Senator from Vermont is on the Judiciary Committee--he has worked together with me and others on this piece of legislation--I am aware of the fact there are many Senators for whom this is a relatively new topic and who have not been as immersed in it. First, I would just say by way of major support that there are 200 victims' rights groups and law enforcement organizations that have endorsed this legislation--200 of them. I am looking forward to having a conference call with them this afternoon, where I can explain to them how we are currently stuck and to solicit their help in getting us unstuck so we can hopefully move this legislation along, have an open amendment process, and working with our colleagues in the House, send this important piece of legislation to the President. As I said, more than 200 victims' rights and law enforcement organizations have endorsed this legislation, including Shared Hope International, Rights4Girls, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Children's Alliance, the National Criminal Justice Association, the End Child Prostitution and Trafficking organization, PROTECT, Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National District Attorneys Association. I read that rather long list of supporting organizations to point out there is nothing political about this particular bill. This is neither a Republican bill nor a Democratic bill. This is, I think, in the best traditions of the Senate, the Congress, when Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle work together to come up with a policy solution that makes sense and that will help. One of the key features of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act is the creation of a special Crime Victims Compensation Fund. It is called the Domestic Trafficking Victims Fund. When I had the honor of serving as attorney general of Texas, we had a Crime Victims Compensation Fund--much like I suspect most States have--where people who commit crimes and who pay fines and penalties pay into that fund, and those moneys are then distributed on a grant basis by the State to help organizations such as the Court Appointed Special Advocates Groups--CASA--which I worked closely with as attorney general, and a number of crime victims' groups and other survivors of crime. What we do is use that same model here. We take the money that is paid by people convicted of human trafficking, sexual abuse, child pornography, child sexual exploitation, interstate transportation for illegal sexual activity, commercial human smuggling, and we require a special additional assessment of $5,000 upon conviction for any one of this class of crimes. In other words, one of the things we are trying to do is move from this model of just dealing with the supply side of a problem and deal with the demand side. We are trying to focus on the people who purchase these illicit services from trafficking victims and then use that fund to do some good, to provide grants to various faith-based organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and the like that help treat the victims of child trafficking and hopefully help them begin to heal once they are rescued from their abusers and their assailants. The other thing we do, sort of from a structural point of view, is we don't treat a young girl who has been trafficked as the criminal. In other words, in the past there has been a tendency to say we are going to arrest the 15-year-old girl and charge her for being a prostitute, when in fact she has no choice in the matter. She is being compelled by either violence or some other coercive means to do what she is doing. So it is not a voluntary act on her part. So what we do is we don't treat them as a criminal. We treat the purchaser of these services as the criminal. We fine them. We use that money then to supply services to help that victim get rescued and get better, to heal, and to get on with their lives. That is what is a little different here because we are not actually using tax dollars. We are using the fines and the penalties assessed against these perpetrators to help these victims heal once they are rescued. That is one of the most important parts of this bill. We expect there would be roughly $30 million a year available for that out of this bill alone. That would be in addition to other things we are doing and other things that are being done at the local and State level. We also make sure that we clarify the benefits and protections offered to victims of domestic human trafficking. Under current law, U.S. citizens are sometimes placed at a disadvantage when seeking services to restore them to their well-being and to offer them protection. But now we would make sure that those services are available without regard to citizenship and would make sure that people who would otherwise not get benefits will get benefits. This disparity in certification has led to some confusion, as we might imagine. For example, under current law, a young person who has been trafficked from Central America through Mexico and into the United States would be eligible for a temporary visa while they cooperate with law enforcement because that testimony would be essential to convict the person who trafficked them. This clarifies that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents should never be denied services due to the fact that they have not received that kind of special certification. It is a little technical, but it is an important area. We also provide child human trafficking deterrence block grants paid entirely through the Crime Victims Compensation Fund I mentioned a moment ago. These funds would be granted to qualifying organizations based on their focus on victim rescue and restoration. Collaboration among law enforcement, social services, emergency responders, children's advocacy centers, victims service providers, and nonprofits would be encouraged to help communities and government work together to develop a holistic approach to figure out what works best to protect these victims of trafficking and to serve victims. It also would create a new purpose area under the Victims of Child Abuse Act for the 900 children's advocacy centers across the country that provide restorative services for victims of child pornography, and it requires that not less than $2 million a year be dedicated to this purpose. In my experience, in Texas, the children's advocacy centers are some of the most outstanding organizations that exist for the treatment of victims of abuse and trafficking. One of the key features in the children's advocacy centers that I have visited is--imagine that a child who has been assaulted or a victim of human trafficking is not only going to be terrified by the experience, but they are also terrified by the law enforcement authorities who try to question them and to get evidence so they can make a case and conviction against the person who did harm to the child. The children's advocacy centers do an amazing job of creating a more relaxed atmosphere, where law enforcement and social service providers can work together in an environment where a child does not feel threatened and where the child can actually not only begin to get better but also cooperate with law enforcement authorities and provide more reliable testimony and evidence that can be used to convict the perpetrators. Also in the bill, we would amend the human trafficking asset forfeiture statute to track the asset forfeiture statute for money laundering and eliminate the need for prosecutors to show direct traceability to the underlying crime and the targeted proceeds when they can show that the assets involved in the crime are used to conceal the source of criminal assets. This is basically taking another provision of current law. I realize that the whole issue of asset forfeiture, when taken to the extreme--I know Chairman Grassley is interested in holding hearings on the subject. But I think the part of this which is not controversial is taking the assets used in the commission of a crime and forfeiting that by the perpetrator, again, using those funds in part to help their victims get better. We also have a provision in the bill that would allow for the streamlining of criminal investigations of human trafficking. Under current law, State and local law enforcement may obtain a wiretap warrant in State court upon showing that the investigation may provide evidence of murder, kidnapping, gambling, robbery, bribery, extortion or dealing with narcotic drugs, including marijuana or other dangerous drugs, or other crimes dangerous to life, limb or property and punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year. What we would do here is provide additional tools for law enforcement to conduct lawful wiretaps in order to get evidence important to convicting the perpetrators of these terrible crimes. We also would require better reporting of this terrible crime of human trafficking. I remember a few years ago, when the Super Bowl was in Dallas, actually working with local law enforcement there where I learned for the first time that, unfortunately, at the same time that the Super Bowl is held in different cities around the country, there is a spike in the amount of trafficking that occurs in conjunction with these huge public events. That was quite an eye-opening experience for me. Part of what we need to do is to get the facts, and to make sure that human trafficking is treated as the serious crime that it is for purposes of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program. This legislation would encourage law enforcement to investigate and report human trafficking activity by classifying this as a part I violent crime and requiring it to be included in the calculation of index crime rates-- again, making sure we understand what the facts are, because I think the fact is that so much of this crime and this sort of activity is hidden from public view. So most Americans probably don't know that this sort of activity goes on in their cities, in their States, and across the country. This would help us deal with that. Under another provision of the bill, we would also make sure we use existing task forces to target offenders who exploit children, and we would, in particular, target child predators. One of the things we learn, as we get deeper into this topic, is the sad fact that somebody who sexually abuses a child is likely to do it more than once. In other words, these twisted individuals unfortunately are going to commit crime after crime after crime until they are caught and taken out of commission. This is one reason why I feel so strongly that we had to eliminate the rape kit backlogs around the country, and we worked closely with a courageous woman named Debbie Smith to reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act to make sure the money that Congress appropriated for the rape kit backlog was adequately funded. Due to the power of DNA testing, we can identify people who commit these serial offenses, and law enforcement can connect the dots better and at the same time exonerate people who have perhaps been falsely accused because they are excluded through a DNA test through this rape kit backlog elimination effort. So trying to make sure we take these serial offenders off the streets is a priority under our bill. As I said, we worked very closely with a number of colleagues, including the Senator from Vermont, the Senator Feinstein of California, Senator Coons, Senator Wyden, and Senator Klobuchar on the other side. On our side, we have had a lot of great effort by Senator Portman and Senator Kirk, among others. Senator Collins has certainly made important contributions. But I wish to particularly recognize the contributions by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein. We added a second title, title II in the legislation, entitled ``Combating Human Trafficking.'' Senator Feinstein was the person who made that major contribution to this effort. My point is that this has really been a bipartisan collaborative effort--something we don't see enough of here in Washington, DC-- untainted by politics and ideology, where we are actually trying to do some good for people who need our help the most. Senator Feinstein contributed much of the meat of title II, including amendments to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, response to victims of child trafficking provision, creating an interagency task force report on child trafficking primary prevention and also requiring a General Accountability Office report to Congress that includes information on Federal and State law enforcement agencies to combat trafficking in the United States and requiring that it include information on each available grant program intended to combat human trafficking or assist victims of trafficking. On our side of the aisle, I mentioned that one of the people who has been a relentless warrior on this has been our friend the junior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Kirk, who contributed the HERO Act to this legislation. That is title III under the HERO Act. Under that important part of the legislation that makes up this overall bill, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, the HERO Act would provide express statutory authorization for the existing ICE Cyber Crimes Center--Immigration and Customs Enforcement--recognizing that so much of what happens in terms of the marketing and the solicitation for people to engage in these crimes occurs now on the Internet. I had the privilege of being here with the Senator from Illinois on the floor yesterday afternoon, and he talked about this one particular site that has been responsible for the trafficking of so much human flesh, mainly in the form of minor children, and his efforts to combat that. But part of what the HERO Act would do is to make sure that we have this powerful tool in the fight against sexual exploitation of children and the production, advertisement, and distribution of child pornography and child sex tourism--if you can imagine such a thing. The HERO Act would also authorize the Cyber Crimes Center to collaborate with the Department of Defense and the National Association to Protect Children for the purpose of recruiting, training, and hiring wounded and transitioning military veterans to serve as law enforcement officials in the investigation and prosecution of these crimes. This child exploitation section uses sophisticated investigative tools to target violators who operate on the Internet, which has been one of the primary focuses of the Senator from Illinois in his efforts, targeting the use of Web sites, email chat rooms, and file-sharing applications. Major initiatives, including Operation Predator, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office within the Department of Homeland Security's flagship investigative initiative for targeting sexual predators, child pornographers, and child sex. It includes the National Child Victim Identification System, which was developed to assist law enforcement agencies in identifying victims of child sexual exploitation, and the virtual global task force and international alliance of law enforcement agencies working together to fight online child exploitation and abuse. I realize this has been rather lengthy, but I thought it was worth making sure that all of our colleagues and anybody within the sound of my voice who cared to listen understood what was in this important piece of legislation, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. To summarize, 200 organizations across the country who are focused like a laser on the bane and evil that child sex trafficking is have endorsed this legislation. The original piece of legislation had 10 Democratic cosponsors, about an equal number--perhaps; I can't remember the exact number--of Republican cosponsors, and it passed by unanimous vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. Coming to the floor, we had something that hadn't happened often enough, in my view, which was that Democrats and Republicans together agreed to bypass the usual cumbersome procedure to get a bill to the floor, known as cloture, and we all agreed we should take up this bill together. That is when things went off the rails, sadly. But I am an optimistic person and I am hopeful cooler heads will prevail. I have had some private conversations with a number of Senators who are really very disturbed by the possibility that legislation as important as this is to the victims of human trafficking might be kicked to the curb because of some phony diversion and argument about restrictions on funding. Again, the provisions of this bill that limit the use of the funds under the Hyde amendment has been the law of the land for 39 years. It was originally started in 1976. Basically, the Hyde amendment says that no taxpayer funds may be used for abortion services. This has been one of the rare areas in an area of great controversy--the subject of abortion--where Congress has come together on a bipartisan basis to say we are going to draw a bright line there to say no matter what your views are on abortion, we are not going to allow taxpayer funds to be used for abortion. Again, that started in 1976 and it has been the law of the land since that time. Every appropriations bill that has passed, including the CRomnibus, the continuing resolution omnibus bill that was passed last fall in the lameduck session of Congress, included a restriction known as the Hyde amendment restriction in it. As a matter of fact, we specifically referenced that provision in the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. So you could imagine my surprise when I think it was yesterday that I got calls, letters, and heard speeches that people were surprised-- shocked--that this provision was in the legislation when it was filed in January--I think January 13--and made public to the world. If anybody thought it was hidden, it was hidden in plain sight to anybody who cared to read it. And to me, what was so surprising about some of the reaction is that this maintains the status quo. This doesn't change anything, and has been the law of the land for 39 years since the original Hyde amendment was adopted. So my hope is we can break out of this terrible cycle of dysfunction which I think, frankly, reflects Congress in a very negative light. I certainly hear it back home in Texas. People say: Well, can't you all get along? Can't you do anything? They don't want us to compromise our principles, and we won't. I don't think we should. But there are so many areas like this where we are united together in trying to do everything we can to help law enforcement investigate and prosecute human trafficking and to help the victims of human trafficking to heal after they are rescued--to heal, get better, and to get on with their lives. That is all this legislation does. I say that is all. That is a pretty big deal. It provides $30 million a year--not tax dollars. These are fines and penalties paid by the people who commit these terrible crimes. It provides $30 million a year as funds that can go toward grants to faith-based organizations, child advocacy centers--you name it--organizations that will spend their lives trying to help these children try to get better and get on with their lives. That money is available to them. But if we don't pass this bill this week, that is not going to happen. How tragic it would be if somehow we let the politics of the day and this feigned outrage over a provision that has been a law of the land for 39 years derail us from doing our job. I have every confidence that the heart of every Member of this body is in the right place when it comes to trying to help these victims of human trafficking. I just ask us to get our heads screwed on right. I know our hearts are in the right place, but frankly I am a little worried about people's heads not being screwed on right when it comes to focusing on a solution that is within our reach and one that has I think enjoyed so much support all across the country--as I mentioned, more than 200 victims rights and law enforcement organizations across the country. I am looking forward in probably the next 10 minutes or so joining a conference call with various members of these organizations, where I can update them on where they are and basically ask them for their help. Call your Senator. Call your Congressman. Tell them we need to get this done, because in all likelihood tomorrow we are going to have a very important vote in the Senate. I said I wasn't going to get mired down in procedure, but we do have an important vote tomorrow which is called a cloture vote. In other words, in order to get to a final passage of this bill, we need to have at least 60 Senators out of 100 vote for ending debate on the bill. That is called a cloture vote. But if we don't have 60 Senators vote to end debate on this bill, then basically we are dead in the water. We have 54 Senators on our side of the aisle. There are 46 on the other side of the aisle. You would think on a bill that does as much as this bill does for the victims of human trafficking and that is so devoid of politics that we could get 60 votes or more. I wish we could get 100 votes to close off debate and finally pass this bill. If we did that in short order, I know we could work with our colleagues in the House of Representatives, who have already passed a similar although a little bit different bill, to try to reconcile those two pieces of legislation and get them to President Obama's desk for his signature. The sooner we do that, the sooner these victims of human trafficking will get the help they need that this bill would provide. So I hope that Senators will think long and hard about their vote on closing off debate tomorrow and getting us to the finish line on this legislation. Again, we don't need everybody. We don't need 100 Senators to vote to close off debate tomorrow, but we do need 60. If we don't get 60, this bill is going to be dead in the water. I would ask all of our colleagues to examine their conscience and to think about what we are doing here and how much good we could do if we come together. I know from talking to some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they have had some sleepless nights. Several of our colleagues have said they basically have had a hard time sleeping thinking about the human tragedy reflected in human trafficking, and they worried whether we will actually be able to get this bill over the finish line. I hope and pray we will. We will find out tomorrow. This is something that is in our hands. We can't control a lot of things in the world, but we can control whether we produce 60 votes here in the Senate tomorrow to close off debate, to get to final passage by a majority vote in the Senate. And if we can, then we are going to be able to expedite the help these victims of human trafficking need. We are going to be able to make sure the predators who prey on innocent children and other victims of human trafficking pay the price, but that out of that bad comes some good when children are rescued and these victims begin the process of healing. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CORNYN. I would ask, is the Senator's amendment targeted in a way that respects the freedom of the Internet and the right of the people?

Mr. CORNYN. I would just ask the Senator to yield for one final question. Would the Senator please outline his bill, his amendment, the SAVE Act?

Mr. CORNYN. My question and point was that the SAVE Act, I understand, is the subject of the amendment that the Senator is seeking to offer and for which I hope our friends on the other side will relent and allow us to go forward, debating and amending this important piece of legislation. As distinguished from the SAVE Act, which is the subject of the Senator's your amendment, the HERO Act, I believe is already a part of the underlying legislation. I just wanted to congratulate the Senator from Illinois and thank him for his longstanding dedication to this issue and the contribution he has made to the underlying piece of legislation.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, through the Chair, I ask my friend from Illinois, who has been a warrior on these issues, particularly with this backpage.com and this advertisement of children and other people trafficked as part of this modern day slavery, if the Senator's amendment, the HERO Act, is actually included, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, told us that Democrats and Republicans could finally agree on one thing; that is, we ought to focus not on the partisan politics and the ideology that so often divides us, but we ought to focus on the victims of human trafficking, largely middle school-age girls who are bought and sold like commodities. I came to the floor yesterday and said that I believe we are all created in the image of God, and it is a sin, it is the very personification of evil for people to treat those same human beings as if they were things. That is what the scourge of human trafficking is all about. I was very glad to see that finally we seemed to be chipping away at the dysfunction of the Senate that we have experienced over the last few years and, in the new majority, given an opportunity for an open amendment process on a subject that we all agree needs to be dealt with that we could work on together. So imagine my surprise when earlier today the same Democratic leader said the Democrats were going to filibuster this anti-human trafficking legislation. Why in the world would they take a 180-degree turn? Why would they do such an about-face or flip-flop? Well, they said because there was language contained in the bill they disagreed with. No, they didn't say they would use this open amendment process to file an amendment and have a vote to strip it out or to modify it or otherwise change it; they said: We are going to block the bill; it is dead unless this language comes out. Yet they do nothing to try to effect that outcome. We might wonder what this language is that they are so upset about that they would literally kick the tens of thousands of children and other victims to the curb because of their outrage that this language is contained in this legislation. Well, imagine my surprise to find out that the reason why the Democratic minority is going to filibuster this antitrafficking bill is because they object to language that has been the law of the land for 39 years--39 years. So I guess they woke up this morning and thought, well, we better do something about it. What is the provision that causes them so much discomfort, that they are so upset about that they are willing to block this legislation? Well, it is something called the Hyde amendment. Basically what that does is it prohibits the use of taxpayer funds for abortions. I realize that in America we are of different minds on the subject of abortion. I am proudly pro-life, but others in our Senate are pro- choice, and we probably have a whole spectrum of views on this very personal issue. But we have had a bipartisan consensus--unanimity almost--for the last 39 years that whatever else the law is, as handed down by the Supreme Court or by Congress, we are not going to use taxpayer funds for abortion. So imagine my surprise when that very language and very reference was included in the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act bill that now today I find out for the first time our Democratic friends object to. Imagine my surprise when that very language was part of the bill that was filed in mid-January and a month later was marked up and voted on in the Senate Judiciary Committee and all members of the Judiciary Committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, voted for it. They voted for it unanimously. Well, I don't believe that was a mistake. Our friends across the aisle have outstanding staff. They are very talented people. I don't always agree with them, but they are good at what they do. I don't believe for a minute that they would have missed a reference in this legislation to a restriction on funding taxpayer- provided abortions, and I don't believe that those staff members, being the diligent professionals they are, didn't tell their principal, their member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. So this idea that there has been some kind of ambush is preposterous. It is just not credible. Well, imagine my surprise when not only did we have a 15-to-0 vote, I believe it was--in other words, a unanimous vote of the Judiciary Committee--for this bill, we have Democratic cosponsors of this bill. Not only do they support the bill, they have been actively working with us on the legislation. Just looking at the face of the bill, I count 10 Democratic cosponsors. Do you think they didn't read the bill before they put their names on it? Do you think their staffs didn't tell them what is in the bill? Well, as we all know, this sort of thing is ordinarily very hotly debated. There are no shrinking violets in the U.S. Senate, no people who sit passively on the sidelines and say: Well, I better not speak up and express my views. That doesn't happen. We have strong-willed, talented people on both sides of the aisle, and there are no shrinking violets. Let's just lay that to rest. People are willing to speak up, and they do speak up every day, every hour, virtually every minute on things they feel strongly about. So this idea that we have created an ambush, that we have surprised our colleagues by including this language in a bill that is on the floor, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act--voted unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee, all Republicans and all Democrats, with 10 Democratic cosponsors--that we have somehow surprised them by including this restriction on taxpayer-funded abortion that has been the law of the land for 39 years is patently ridiculous. It is just not believable. Let me provide a little more information. The reference in the bill is on page 50 under limitations. It says: ``Amounts in the Fund, or otherwise transferred from the Fund''--that is, the crime victims compensation fund created by this legislation, $30 million that goes to help treat victims and help them heal and get on with their lives--this bill says that this fund ``shall be subject to the limitations on the use or expending of amounts described in sections 506 and 507 of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 . . . to the same extent as if amounts in the Fund were funds appropriated under division H of such Act.'' I went to see how many Democrats voted for that consolidated appropriations act in 2014 that contained the Hyde amendment language and the limitations on taxpayer-funded abortions. Imagine my surprise when I saw that 55 Democrats voted for that language in the 2014 consolidated appropriations bill that is referred to on pages 50 and 51 of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. This is the same bill the Democratic leader said Democrats were going to filibuster because they were so outraged, they were surprised, they were bushwhacked, they were ambushed, they were tricked. Twenty-three Democrats voted for that same appropriation language in 2014. But it gets better--or worse, as the case may be. Democrats have supported legislation consistent with the Hyde amendment for a long time. As I have said, it has been the law of the land for 39 years. When was the last time? Well, the Department of Homeland Security funding. Remember this back-and-forth we had over the defunding of the President's Executive action on immigration that so many on our side of the aisle are upset about because it is not within the President's authority to do it--and that is not just my opinion; it is the Federal judge's in Brownsville who has issued a preliminary injunction--but how many Democrats voted for the Department of Homeland Security funding bill that contains that same limitation on taxpayer funding for abortions? Forty-five Democrats voted for it. So imagine my surprise when 45 Democrats recently voted for that appropriations bill to come to the Senate today and be told: We are outraged. We are never going to support that. And, by the way, we didn't know it was in the bill when we voted for it in the Judiciary Committee or when we cosponsored the bill. Well, they presumably knew about it when they voted for the Department of Homeland Security funding in February of 2015, when 32 of them voted for the CR omni or CRomni in December of 2014. And, oh, by the way, remember ObamaCare? Every single Democrat voted to support ObamaCare which contained the same restriction on taxpayer funding for abortions. They have also voted for the Children's Health Insurance Program, the so-called SCHIP, for Defense authorization bills. In other words, our Democratic friends have voted time and time and time again for the exact same language they now say they are going to filibuster on the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, language they said they weren't aware of when they voted for it--they didn't read it, their staff didn't tell them about it. Well, if that is true, I would get new staff. But I know the staff on the Democratic side, like the staff on the Republican side, are highly professional people and they wouldn't fail to identify offensive language that their Senator could not and would not and never has voted for, or they would be out of a job. So I plead with our Democratic friends, please don't make this Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act another political football. For heaven's sake, if we can't agree to protect the most vulnerable victims of this heinous crime, what can we ever agree on? If we can't agree on that, if we are going to try to find a way to flyspeck legislation and say, well, I won't allow this bill to go forward if that language is included in there--even though it has been the law of the land for 39 years, even though routinely Democrats have voted for that restriction on taxpayer-funded abortion time and time and time again--why start now, when we are talking about the most vulnerable victims of this heinous crime, and say: Well, we are going to punish you. We are not going to provide you the services you need in order to heal and get better and get on with your life, because we woke up this morning, March 10, 2015, and after 39 years we decided this is where we draw the line. We are drawing the line here. Never again will we ever vote for the Hyde amendment to be applied to any funds appropriated by or in the possession of the Federal Government. So I really would ask my colleagues: Please reconsider. Please let's not do this. Don't do this to these children and these victims of trafficking. Don't do it to this institution. We all understand that Washington can be a pretty tough place. All of us are volunteers, and we understand politics can sometimes be a tough business. But let's not take it out on these victims of human trafficking. That should be beneath us. They don't deserve that. They deserve better. If we pass this legislation and we get it to the President's desk and he signs it--which I believe he will--hundreds, if not thousands, of victims of human trafficking have a safe place to sleep, they will have people who love them and care for them try to help them heal and get better. We will take the money from the people who perpetrate these crimes and we will use that money to help provide needed services to these children and other victims of human trafficking. We will say ``no more'' to the teenaged girl who is arrested for prostitution, because she is a victim of trafficking--we will tell her, no more are you a criminal. We will recognize her for the victim she is, and we will treat her appropriately. We will deal not only with the supply side of this terrible crime, we will deal with the demand side--people who get off the hook too easily with impunity, people who purchase these illicit services, and somehow always seem to avoid responsibility and continue to participate in this crime with impunity. So the domestic trafficking victims fund in our legislation supplements existing authorized grant programs that are already subject to appropriation laws such as the Hyde amendment. They are already subject to the same provisions. Our legislation clarifies that the Hyde amendment also applies to any funds that are used to supplement those existing grant programs. Our legislation does not in any way expand or change the scope of the Hyde amendment. It just says these funds operate under the same rules that cover the existing grant programs they supplement. Everyone agrees the programs we supplement in this legislation need more funds. I know the distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Vermont, has made an impassioned plea to add more money beyond the victims compensation fund that we created. He is saying there needs to be more money. As a long-time member of the Appropriations Committee, I hope the Appropriations Committee looks at that and makes a decision whether they ought to supplement what we do. But these funds are being subjected to the same limitation on spending as every dollar the Senate Appropriations Committee has appropriated during the last 39 years. So my hope is this, that Members of the Senate will rise above this disagreement, this posturing, this attempt to try to play ``gotcha'' at the expense of these victims of human trafficking. No Member should attempt to make this bill a debate about extraneous issues and policies that have been settled on a bipartisan basis for 39 years. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from West Virginia will be giving her first speech in the Senate here shortly and I look forward to listening to that, but I wanted to say a few words about the legislation we will be debating and hopefully passing this week, and that is the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. This is without a doubt one of the most shocking and troubling issues facing our country today. It is no exaggeration to say modern-day human slavery, at a time when we believed as a country that slavery was a part of our past and something we only read about in our history books. Many people are under the impression that human trafficking is a problem somewhere else or at some other time in history, but the fact is human trafficking is a problem right now in all 50 States, right here in the United States of America, the most affluent country in the world. It is not just a problem in Texas, it is not just a problem in Arizona, it is not just a problem in West Virginia, it is a problem in all 50 States. Thousands of young girls, many of them middle school age, are trapped into a life of bondage where they are abused and sold for sex every day. It is not easy to say, but it is true, and we must say it and we must acknowledge it. This is of course unconscionable. As the father of two daughters myself, it is simply heartbreaking to hear the stories of young women who have been trapped in this system. Of course, we can imagine it is every parent's worst nightmare. One woman I have had the privilege of meeting and who shared her very personal story about this is Melissa Woodward from the Dallas-Fort Worth area in Texas. When she was 12 years old--12 years old--she was sold into the sex trade by a family member, somebody whom she had every right to assume cared for her, loved her, wanted her to grow up being a loved and productive person. But she was sold into the sex trade by a family member. Eventually she was pulled out of school and trafficked full time when she was in sixth grade. Her life became a prison. She was chained to a bed in a warehouse. She endured regular beatings and, of course, she was sexually assaulted with regularity. She was even set on fire by one of her captors. All the while, she was forced to serve between 5 and 30 men every day. Melissa has said that she wished she were dead. Her story of her time in captivity is gut-wrenching and heartbreaking, but just as sad is the way she was treated once she escaped from her captors. As is the case with so many victims, Melissa struggled for years to distance herself from her past. But instead of being treated as the victim she was, the criminal justice system actually treated her as the criminal. That is an all too common outcome for victims of trafficking, who are labeled as prostitutes and are left with few options but to return to the nightmare that so sadly exists in our country. That needs to change. That is why I am glad the Senate is taking up the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, because this begins the process of making that important change. The bill helps law enforcement crack down on criminal trafficking rings and perpetrators of these crimes. Instead of a slap on the wrist and a fine, the so-called johns--the demand side for this terrible trade--will be treated as the child rapists and the criminals they are. No longer are we just going to deal with the supply side. We are going to pay attention to the demand side too. Critically, this bill takes fines from the perpetrators of these awful crimes and redirects them into a crime victims fund which will help people such as Melissa and others get a fresh lease on life, to begin to heal and to get the help they so badly need in order to get on with their lives. This week we have a wonderful opportunity in the Senate, in a town that is too often divided by ideology and partisanship, to do something together on a bipartisan basis that can help people such as Melissa and the thousands of young girls like her waiting to be saved. All of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, are committed to working together to do everything we can to help these victims and to put an end to this abhorrent practice. This particular legislation we are taking up today passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee a few weeks ago. That doesn't happen very often, but it did for this legislation. More than 200 groups around the country--such as the NAACP, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Rights4Girls, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Conference of State Legislatures--have all endorsed our work on this issue. I want to particularly thank some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who joined me on this effort: the senior Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, and the senior Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden. They have been great partners in this fight--not just this year but for many years. And there are many others. Another great partner has been the junior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Kirk, who has worked for years to get antitrafficking legislation to the floor. He introduced a bill called the HERO Act which authorizes a program to recruit wounded, injured, and returning veterans and provides them with training in high-tech computer forensics and law enforcement skills to help fight child exploitation. I also want to acknowledge the great contribution of the junior Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman, who has a bill called the Bringing Missing Children Home Act, which improves the way cases of missing children are handled, strengthening law enforcement reporting and response procedures. Both the HERO Act and the Bringing Missing Children Home Act have been incorporated into the underlying bill, and I want to thank both of them for their efforts and willingness to work with us to make the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act even stronger. I know there are Members who are interested in offering amendments to this legislation. Thanks to the majority leader, we are going to have an open process where anybody with a better idea who wants to add to this base of work that is contained in this bill will have the opportunity to do so, both offering amendments and seeking votes on those. This is a fight that sadly must be fought, but it is a fight we will win. When we do, we will finally have done our part to help deliver our Nation's promise of freedom to those who are enslaved.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Venture Exchange and Small Cap Companies.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``How Much For A Song?: The Antitrust Decrees that Govern the Market for Music.''